Introduction
Like their predecessors in Jewish and Christian traditions, Muslim
intellectuals applied different approaches in interpreting their
revelation. If a philosophical and Sufi approach is taken into
consideration, Mullā Ṣadrā (d.1050/1640), a prominent figure of Islamic
intellectual tradition, presents many commentaries in the Islamic
religious context.11For his Quranic exegesis see Mohammed.
Rustom, ”The triumph of mercy : philosophy and scripture in Mullā
Ṣadrā,” (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2012). Also
Sajjad H. Rizvi, ”Mullā Ṣadrā Shīrāzī : his life and works and the
sources for Safavid philosophy,” (Oxford :: Oxford University Press on
behalf of the University of Manchester, 2007).
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy1001/2007281937.html. For more on
Ṣadrā’s methodology see Aḥad Farāmarz Qarāmalikī, ”Ravishʹshināsī-i
falsafah-i Mullā Ṣadrā,” ed. Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm Ṣadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī
(Chāp-i 1., Tihrān: Intishārāt-i Bunyād-i Ḥikmat-i Islāmī-i Ṣadrā,
1388). For his philosophical school also see Fazlur Rahman, ”The
philosophy of Mullā Ṣadrā (Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Shirāzī),” (1st ed., Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1975). Chief among them is his
incomplete exegesis on the Quran known as Mafātīḥ al-ghayb and
commentary on the Shii doctrinal Hadith collection, i.e.,al -Uṣūl al-Kāfī. 22For his scheme of intellect in
the Shi’i hadith collection and its relation to cosmology and ontology
see Seyed Amirhossein Asghari, ”Ontology and Cosmology of the ʿaql in
Ṣadrā’s Commentary on Uṣūl al-Kāfī,” Journal of Shi’a Islamic
Studies 10, no. 2 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1353/isl.2017.0011. The
latter is compiled by Abu Ja‘far al-Kulaynī (d. 329 AH/941).
Ṣadrā ’s main philosophical theses are well known, and his major work of
philosophy the Transcendent Wisdom in the Four Intellectual
Journeys (Al-Hikmat al-muta’āliyah fī al-asfār al-’aqlīyyah al-arba’ah)marks his most important work. Nevertheless, his important contributions
in the interpretation of revelation based on his particular
philosophical-mystical approach are in need of more examination.
Therefore, this paper tries to shed more light on Ṣadrā’s approach to
the question of the relation between intellect and revelation.
In their assessments of Transcendent Philosophy, some scholars have
declared that Sadra’s approach consists of nothing new and innovative
but an integration of previous schools of thought, namely philosophy
(Burhān ), Gnosticism (Irfān ), and revelation
(Qurān).33For more on these view see Murtada Razavi,
Naqd-i Mabānīyi Hikmat-i Muta‘āliya,, , 1380 AH. (Qom:
Intishārāt-i Maktab-i Ahl-i Bayt, 1380/2001). Also Yahyā Yathribī,‘Ayar-e Naqd (Naqdi bar hastī shināsīy va Ma‘ād-e Mulla Sadra)(Tihrān: Intishārat-i Pāyā, 1379/2000). On the other hand, an
opposite group claims that Sadra, with his comprehensive understanding
of all previous schools of thought, had established his own system of
thought known as Transcendent philosophy (Al-Hikmat
al-muta’āliyah ). For those who see Sadra as an innovative scholar and
philosopher, his access to diverse sources and avoidance of any kind of
methodological restriction, and the conscious adherence to a certain
methodological pluralism make his approach a unique one. Qarāmalikī, in
his observation of Sadrā’s approach, illustrates his attention to
various sciences is to solve a single problem. He moreover indicates
that Sadra takes the benefit of different methods and branches of
knowledge in understanding a single problem in the vast domain of
theological studies. He states that,
deep down, what attracts his complete attention is the collection of
miscellaneous approaches. In fact, he draws on diverse approaches to
analyze a single problem. Third, he does not get involved in a
comparative evaluation and selection of the best approach. Neither does
he try to put the findings of different sciences in solving single
problems together; rather, his method is to challenge the different
views and approaches to solve a single problem. (Qaramaleki, 2006)
In addition to what mentioned above on Sadra’s methodology, one should
not ignore his Sufi/mystical and intuitive approach to the problems. In
Sadra’s methodology, “intuitive intellect” (’aql-i Shuhūdī)places as a higher method of understanding theological and philosophical
concepts and realities. Nasr states that “his “eye of the heart”
opened, and he was able to have a direct vision of spiritual
world”.44Seyed Hossein Nasr, ”The Qur’an and Hadith as source
and inspiration of Islamic philosophy,” in History of Islamic
Philosophy , ed. Seyed Hossein Nasr; Oliver Liman (London: Routledge,
1996). Tabātabā’ī, Mutahharī, S.H. Nasr, Henry Corbin are among those
who emphasized the authenticity and innovative aspects of Mulla
Sadra’s Transcendent Philosophy.
Intellect and Revelation:
The relation between intellect and revelation is one of the important
questions of theology, with roots extending back to both Muslim,
Christian, and Jew thinkers. It has been mentioned that “The concept of
ʿ aql, “intellect,” is probably one of the most controversial in the
history of Muslim thought.” Intellect is the human’s faculty of
apprehension whereby he can understand, argue, and provide a critique.
Contemplation of intellectual realities, such as primary
self-evidential, mathematical and logical principles, are among the
functions of intellect. When the relation of revelation and intellect is
discussed below, questions could help to clarify dimensions of this
interaction:
- Is there a similarity between the meanings of intellect as it is used
in the religious text with that of philosophers or theologians
(Mutekallemun )?
- Dose revelation accepts the philosophical intellect defined by
philosophers?
- What is the function of intellect according to revelation, i.e., Quran
and tradition?
- What kind of epistemological sequences exists between intellect and
revelation? Does intellect have priority over revelation or vice
versa?
- What is the role and borders of intellect in one’s understanding and
discovering the meanings of revelation?
- In the case of the conflict between the results of intellect and
revelation, which one has priority?
- Does the outcome of the intellect remains out of the borders of
religious knowledge and opposite to it, or it is inside of the
religious knowledge? Could intellect be supposed as an authentic
source alongside the tradition to evaluate human knowledge about
religion?
- The major point concerns what sort of relationship can be established
between intellect and revelation. Should we prove religious statements
by means of the intellect? And what about a response to the doubts
about religion by the rational defense? Does the authenticity of
religious belief depend on its rationality?
More and more questions could be put in this regard. The history of
Islamic theology, philosophy, and mysticism is full of debates on these
issues. While Ash‘rites emphasized the literal meanings of religious
text, Mu‘tazilite were advocates of an intellectual interpretation of
revelation. Shi‘ites, however, had their own approaches. Nevertheless,
among Shi‘ites, one can find Akhbārī and Usuli trends along with the
recent anti-rational trend of the Tafkiki movement. A
characteristic of this school is a harsh critic of philosophical
interpretation of religion and denying any harmony among intellect and
revelation.
Historical debates reveal a misunderstanding or misinterpretations of
both Intellect (‘Aql ) and revelation. Some attacks on the
intellect have taken place without any clarification. One, however,
needs to emphasize that the Intellect for Muslim thinkers did not have a
single meaning. There exist numerous definitions of intellect in the
Islamic sciences that one can find in philosophical, theological, and
mystical texts. Chittick has sorted out some of the Muslim thinkers’
objections of intellect in grasping the reality of revelation. Sanā’ī,
for instance, emphasizes that “Exercising intellect (ʿā qelī) is the
work of Ibn Sīnā” or “How can a spider snare a phoenix?” Rumi defines
those involved in Partial intellect (‘Aql-i juz‘i ) as having
wooden legs.55See William Chittick, ”ʿAQL,” inEncyclopædia Iranica, (2011). Chittick moreover states that
the Peripatetic philosophers, such as Avicenna, al-Kindi, and al-Farabi,
supported the premise that the ’intellect’ (al-’aql), … was a
sufficient guide for man to understand the realities of things and to
attain ultimate truth. They did maintain that the very act of acquiring
knowledge entails a kind of illumination by the Active Intellect
(al-’aql al-fa”al ), but they emphasized the rational knowledge
that any human being could attain through the healthy functioning of his
mind without any special divine aid or grace.66William C.
Chittick, ”Mysticism versus Philosophy in earlier Islamic History: The
Al–Tūsi, Al–Qūnawi correspondence: WILLIAM C. CHITTICK,”Religious Studies 17, no. 1 (1981).
In the Islamic hadith collections, the intellect has different
functions. While it is highly prised as human faculty of intellection,
it has also mentioned that this faculty is not capable of understanding
all the Divine secrets. Some indicate the inability of the intellect to
understand revelation. In one instant, “the religion of God could not
grasp by intellects.” This narration could mean that the philosophy
behind the religious law cannot be understood by means of analogy,
perhaps. Also, a prophetic narration emphasizes the contemplation of
God’s names rather than his essence.
Opposite to the above-mentioned Hadiths and sayings, except Koranic
verses, are numerous narrations that allude to the importance of a
belief that is based on intellect or intellectual understanding of
religion. The best witness of this sort is the first chapter of Shi’a
Hadith collection: Usul al-Kafi . Kulaynī, the compiler of the
hadiths, has gathered thirty-four narrations regarding the importance,
cosmology, and cosmogony, responsibility, component, and opponents of
intellect from Shi‘a Imams in the first chapter of his Hadithcollection. Mulla Sadra as a Philosopher and Muslim thinker has written
a commentary on this collection, and “In writing these glosses, Sadra
seems to be particularly interested in illuminating the intrinsic
relation between two sources of knowledge, viz., transmitted-religious
and intellectual-philosophical.”77Ibrahim Kalin, ”An Annotated
Bibliography of the Works of Mullā Ṣadrā with a Brief Account of His
Life,” Islamic Studies 42, no. 1 (2003),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20837250.
A Philosopher’s Approach to a Religious Text:
Mulla Sadra is better known as a philosopher rather than an exegete of
religious texts. But it should not be neglected that his approach
towards religious texts, along with his innovations in philosophy, has
many novel features. Therefore, one finds a deeper understanding of
revelation and religious narrations. However, this area “has received
relatively little attention”88 Nevertheless, “These works
taken together constitute the most imposing philosophical commentaries
upon the Qur’an and Hadith in Islamic history.”99Nasr,
”The Qur’an and Hadith as source and inspiration of Islamic
philosophy.”
Among these works, one can refer to Mafatıh al-ghayb , Asrar
al-ayat wa-Anwar al-bayyinat, Mutashabihat al-Qur’an, Tafsir Ayat
al-Nur and Ma‘ani al-alfaz al-mufrada min al-Qur’an 1010For
Sufi/Mystical interpretation of the Qurān see Seyed Amirhossein
Asghari, ”Sufi Interpretation of the Qurʿān,” Burhan Journal of
Qur’anic Studies 1, no. 1 (2016). as commentaries on Quranand Sharhi Ususl al-Kafi as a commentary on Shi‘a hadithcollection. Sadra’s work on Hadith or Islamic transmitted
sciences shows us how the relationship between intellect and revelation
could be and how philosophy became integrated into the Shiite
intellectual world.1111Nasr, ”The Qur’an and Hadith as source and
inspiration of Islamic philosophy.”
As Nasr has indicated, this work may help the reader “to realize the
philosophical fecundity of many of the sayings of the Imams and their
role in later philosophical meditation and deliberation.1212Nasr,
”The Qur’an and Hadith as source and inspiration of Islamic
philosophy.” It also indicates that how Sadra re-appropriated early
Shi’a hadíth through the lens of the intervening seven centuries
of theological, mystical and philosophical developments within
Islam.”1313
Sadra, in his introduction to Usul al-Kafi, explains why he
decided to comment upon this collection. As he emphasizes: “Nowadays we
encounter to a group of people that a deep contemplation of theological
problems are considered by them as heresy, and thinking of God’s signs
as a ruse”.
It is obvious that Sadra clearly encounters the problem of an
anti-rational faith in his time and, to avoid its consequences, tries to
explore some of the complex and deep intellectual meaning of revelation
and the inner harmony of intellect and religious statements. This is
evident in his commentary on Kitab al-‘aql wa’l-jahl (the book of
intellect and ignorance). The narrations in this commentary discuss
intellect, intellection, ignorance, and knowledge. So Sadra’s work is an
extensive philosophical and mystical discussion on a religious text.
Meaning of intellect according to Sadra’s Sharh-e Usul
al-Kafi
Sadra, in his commentary on Usul al-Kafi , follows the third
Hadith of the first chapter, while pointing to the diversity of the
meanings of intellect among people, mentions six definitions for
‘Aql (intellect). He emphasizes that the concept of ‘Aqlamong some of the meanings has equivocality of names and among some
others is an analogical term. His definitions of ‘Aql could be
summarized as follows:
- Intellect is an innate disposition by which humans distinguish
themselves from other animals. All human kinds possess this intellect,
which is a theoretical intellect, by means of which man is able to
know the primary self-evidence and consequently theoretical sciences.
- The second meaning, according to Sadra, is that ofMutakallimūn (Kalamists), which is for affirmation or negation.
The purpose of Mutakallimūn from intellect is its primary
stages that are famous to all. For instance, ‘Aql in this
meaning is the knowledge of the fact that four is twice 2.
- The third definition is referred to in ethical books. This intellect
is a part of the human soul that, by keeping the religious beliefs,
man gradually gains. By means of this intellect, a human will be able
to understand what to practice and what to avoid.
- Based on the fourth definition, ‘Aql is something that by its
presence, people call someone as ‘Aaqel (wise). If someone
possesses this, he/she will be able to quickly understand what to
choose or avoid, even if it is a sensual desire. Sadra indicates that
people of truth do not call this ability al-Nokra or mischief,
not ‘Aql .
- The other definition of ‘Aql is the Intellect mentioned in the
Kitab al-Nafth (section on the soul) that is divided into four
categories of potential intellect, habitual intellect, actual
intellect, and intellectus in actu .
- The last definition is the intellect discussed in the book ofElahiyyat (Divinity) and knowledge of lordship. It is an entity
that has no sort of attachment or connection to anything except its
creator, who is the self-abiding God. This definition of intellect
applies to an external and objective being, while the previous
definitions were part of the human soul or its faculties. In other
words, it is “an Essential-Substance (jawhar ) independent of
bodies in every respect, not existent in the manner of
contingent-Accidents, nor acting and freely disposing in the manner of
Souls-Psyches, nor as particularity and mixture as Matter and
Form.
It is clear that in the discussion of the relationship between intellect
and revelation, the second meaning of intellect is intended. The other
meanings are not applicable to this discussion. In the third and fourth
meanings, ‘Aql does not result in any belief or systematic
thought to be compared with religion. Also, the first meaning is the
faculty of understanding that appears in the self-evidence and innate
matters. The fifth meaning also could not be applied in the relationship
between revelation and intellect. The sixth meaning alludes to the
intellect, not as a part of the soul or human faculty but as an
objective being, which is discussed in cosmology. The second meaning
points to those issues that are intellectually perceived and are weather
conceptive, assertive, self-evident, or deductive. This meaning of
intellect is applied in discussing the relationship between intellect
and revelation.
Intellect and Revelation
Different trends in the history of Islamic theology have defined the
correlation between intellect and revelation. Some argue that intellect
or all independent acts of intellectuality are rejected by revelation.
On the other hand, there is an idea that intellect rejects the
revelation. In this part, we want to see what Sadra’s approach was
toward this question.
In Sadra’s system of thought, neither intellect rejects the revelation
nor does revelation do so. What Sadra did was involving intellect,
revelation, and Gnosticism in his philosophy. It is worth mentioning
that it was Ibn Sina was the first one who alluded to this style of
thinking in chapter nine of his Isharat . Ibn sina, with regard to
some difficult issues, asserts that only “those firmly rooted in
transcendent philosophy” can solve such problems. So, according to
Muslim intellectuals, “only through the objective and universal
revelation do the virtualities of the intellect become actualized. It is
only by submitting itself to the objective revelation that this
subjective revelation in man, which is the intellect, becomes itself
fully, capable not only of analysis but also synthesis and
unification.” Therefore Sadra, in his introduction to his Asfar
al-arba‘ah, curses a philosophy that its principles are not in
agreement with the Book and Tradition.
The point is that Sadra was in search of the truth, and if philosophy or
intellectual practice avoids him from gaining that truth, he rejects it.
His solution is to go back to both intellect and revelation and not to
leave one in favour of the others, which, according to Corbin, this
dualism results in a secular understanding of religion.
According to Mulla Sadra, intellect is the principal former of human
character and the unique tool of discovering secrets of the universes.
He meanwhile, in his commentary on Usul al-Kafi, interprets and
adopts intellectual faculty with the truth issued from Shi‘a Imams,
which means that he tries to tie intellect and revelation. He neither
look at philosophy from the perspective of religion not to religion from
the perspective of philosophy. He depicts an interaction for both of
them as follow:
“The Qur’anic Revelation is the light that causes one to see. Intellect
in the eye which sees and which contemplates this light. In order for
the phenomenon of vision to be produced, there must be light, but it is
necessary to have eyes to look. If you suppress this light, your eyes
will not see anything; if you obstinately close your eyes, as do the
literalists and jurists, you will not see anything either. In both cases
there is a triumph of darkness, and the case of him who opens only one
eye, the case of one-eyed man, is not better. By contrast, to enjoin the
intellect and divine Revelation is to have ”light upon light” as the
Light Verse of the Qur’an (24:35) says”.
Intellect and revelation, for Sadra, both are ways to gain knowledge of
God. He also asserts that there is no conflict between the philosophical
statements and that of religion. A sound and true philosophy for Sadra
is the one that is in favor of revelation. He believes that those
philosophers that are not following the prophets are lost, and one whose
religion is not that of the Prophets (‘a) is not considered to be
theosophy at all. And one who is not firmly rooted in the gnosis of
realities is not considered to be from the theosophists.
Conclusion:
The relationship between revelation and intellect from Sadra’s point of
view has been discussed in this chapter. As we emphasized above, Sadra
neither looks at the revelation from the viewpoint of rationality or
philosophy, nor does he do so to intellect. His commentary onUsusl al-Kafi and describing the notion of ‘Aql with the
stress upon the transcendent philosophy shows that in his vision, both
intellect and revelation are means of gaining the true and sound
knowledge of God and cosmos. If there seems to be a contradiction, he
suggests that there is a problem either in rational understanding or
religious interpretation. Therefore, he sometimes refers to esoteric
exegesis or Ta‘wil . In other words, one can understand that
according to Sadra, if intellect possesses all its necessary conditions,
it will reach the same conclusion as a revelation.
Sadra, while commenting on the hadith number thirty-three of the book of
intellect and ignorance, emphasizes the fact that: there is no distance
between faith and infidelity, except shortcomings in the intellectual
faculty.
Sadra’s philosophy, on the other hand, teaches the reader that
attainment of intellectual perfection and pure knowledge necessitates
the arrival to the higher universes. Knowledge and intuition deeply
purify the human heart, while opposite them, it results in the eternal
death of the heart.
Therefore, faith is not seen as opposed to intellect, as it includes
hearty and intuitive knowledge. It gets different steps, such as
speculative reason and intuitive intellect. Sadra tries to reconcile the
intellect and revelation with the belief that both revelation and
intellect are mean to reach God.
Sadra’s approach to this issue seems to be more realistic than that of
Fideism for the fact that human being naturally possesses the faculty of
intellect, and it is absurd to neglect intellect while encountering an
important issue such as revelation. Intellect, according to Sadra, is
“the axis of which everything revolves” and “all the arguments
rests”. in the book of Hujjah, he brings another example:
“he who shuns the intellect and limits himself to the light of the Holy
Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet and his progeny (‘a) is one who
enjoys the presence of the light of the Sun and the Moon, but shuts his
eyelids. Thus, there is no difference between him and the blind.
Therefore, religion together with the intellect is light upon light”.
When God created Adam, he did not ask him to neglect his intellect;
rather, according to the narrated second Hadith in Usul
al-Kafi, God asked him through Gabriel to choose between intellect,
religion, and modesty. The narration is as follow:
”Jibraīl (Gabriel) came to Adam and informed him: ‘O Adam! I have been
ordered to let you choose one out of three things. Therefore, choose one
and leave the other two.’ Adam asked: ‘What are the three things?’ He
replied, ‘Reason, modesty, and religion (din).’ Then Adam said: ‘I
choose reason.’ So Jibraīl ordered modesty and faith to withdraw and
leave reason, but they said: ‘O Jibraīl! we both have been instructed
(by God) to remain with reason wherever it may be.’ Jibraīl answered:
‘Then that is your situation, and he ascended towards Heaven.”
Adam chose Intellect, and by that symbolic selection, both moral and
religion stayed with him. The narrated story is a religious form of
harmony of intellect and revelation that Sadra strongly believed in.
Finally, contemporary Muslim society suffers from two extreme opposition
regarding religion. Sadra’s approach can offer a healthier Islamic
society within which intellectuality and spirituality can live in
harmony.